"Guns Don’t Kill People, People Do?"

This is my first entry in my new blog, “A Logical Take” where I will explain how logic can help us examine and make sense of the world around us. For my first entry, I would like examine an argument that is being heard, over and over again, in the wake of the Sandy Hook tragedy, and the subsequent debate about gun regulation:

“Guns don’t kill people; people kill people.”

Everyone's heard it, a lot of people believe it, and some even think it settles the whole gun control debate. (After all, that’s why it’s the NRA’s slogan, and why people brandish it on bumper stickers and post it endlessly on facebook.) Others, however, think the argument is terrible. Interestingly, however, I can’t find a solid consensus regarding what exactly is wrong with it. Some think it begs the question, others think it equivocates, still others think it merely oversimplifies the issue. Consequently, especially as a logician, I think it’s an argument worth some examination.

Some might not want to read any further, thinking that by using the Sandy Hook tragedy to argue for gun regulations I am politicizing that tragedy. There are a couple of things to say in response. First, I'm not going to argue for or against gun regulations. I am simply going to examine this argument. There may still be good arguments against gun regulation, or there may not. All I want to know is whether or not this argument is one. Secondly, the notion that the political ramifications of a tragedy should not be discussed in the wake of that tragedy is itself fallacious. We do need to make sure our heads are emotionally clear before having a serious discussion, but it is not disrespectful to the victims of a tragedy to discuss possible ways that we might avoid similar tragedies. Besides, tragedies such as Sandy Hook have now become so common that if we are not allowed to speak about gun regulations in the wake of such tragedies, we will never be allowed to speak about it at all. Truth be told, the notion that one shouldn't talk about such things after a tragedy is a political notion itself – one invented by those against gun regulations because they know that people are more in favor of gun regulations after such tragedies.

So let us turn to the argument itself: “Guns don’t kill people; people kill people.” The first thing to notice is that the argument has no stated conclusion. What follows? Since the argument is usually given in the context of a discussion about gun regulation, by gun advocates, I assume the conclusion has something to do with that. But what exactly? That there should be no gun regulation at all? That there should not be more gun regulation than there is? That the increase in mass killings done with guns is irrelevant to whether or not there should be gun regulations? Who knows? And an argument without an obvious conclusion is hardly an argument at all.

In any event, it doesn't matter because no conclusion about gun regulation logically follows from these two statements. To understand why, let me articulate the difference between ultimate, intermediate, and proximate causes. Consider the words you are looking at right now. What "caused" the words to appear as they are appearing to you right now? You might say that I, the author, did – but that is not the whole story. The whole story is long and includes my fingers typing on a keyboard, the creation of an MSWord document, me posting the words on my blog, etc. There is a long "causal chain" standing between my intention to type these words and the emission of light from your screen to your eyes. The causal chain starts with me – I am the ultimate cause. Other subsequent links in the chain—my typing, Justin’s postings, your clicking—are “intermediate causes." And the light emitting from your screen is the proximate cause—the thing or event most immediately responsible for your current experience.

The argument under consideration clarifies that, when it comes to murders, people are the ultimate cause and guns are merely proximate causes – the end of a causal chain that started with a person deciding to murder. But nothing follows from these facts about whether or not guns should be regulated. Such facts are true for all criminal activity, and even noncriminal activity that harms others: The ultimate cause is found in some decision that a person made; the event, activity or object that most directly did the harming was only a proximate cause. But this tells us nothing about whether or not the proximate cause in question should be regulated or made illegal. For example, consider the following argument:

"Bazookas don't kill people; people kill people."

Although it is obviously true that bazookas are only proximate causes, it clearly does not follow that bazookas should be legal. Yes, bazookas don't kill people, people do—but bazookas make it a lot easier for people to kill people, and in great numbers. Further, a bazooka would not be useful for much else besides mass murders. Bazookas clearly should be illegal and the fact that they would only be proximate causes to mass murders does not change this. In fact, it is totally irrelevant to the issue; it has nothing to do the fact that they should be illegal. Why? Because other things are proximate causes to people’s demise, but obviously shouldn’t be illegal. For example, consider this argument (given in the aftermath of a bad car accident):

"Cars don't kill people; people kill people."

Obviously cars should not be illegal, but notice that this has nothing to do with the fact that they are proximate causes. Of course, they should be regulated; I shouldn't be allowed to go onto the highway in a car with no brakes. But all of that has to do what cars are for (they are not made for killing people), what role they play in society (it couldn't function without them), etc. It's a complicated issue—one to which pointing out that that cars are merely proximate causes to some deaths contributes nothing.

So clearly the argument under consideration, and any other argument that merely points out that guns are proximate causes (e.g., "stop blaming the guns and start blaming the person") is fallacious. Since people can't seem to agree on what fallacy such arguments employ, I would like to give a name to the mistake I have identified within them: "the fallacy of mistaking the relevance of proximate causation."

So, should all guns be illegal? After all, like the bazooka, they do make killing people in mass easier to accomplish. Then again, like cars, using them for mass murder is not their intended function. Most people agree that they should at least be regulated (at the least, most think that all gun sales should require a background check). But how strictly should they be regulated? Perhaps very strictly. After all, states with stricter gun regulations have fewer gun related deaths. Then again, there may be philosophical issues related to the protection of liberty that trump such utilitarian concerns. It’s a complicated issue.

And that’s my point: It’s a complicated issue. There are lots of relevant factors involved, but the fact that guns are proximate causes isn't one of them. So the next time quotes the NRA slogan, "Guns don't kill people; people kill people," in an attempt to end a discussion about gun control, do me a favor: point out that they have “mistaken the relevance of proximate causation,” pause briefly to enjoy the confused look on their face, and then patiently explain the fallacy to them.

The 'Guns don't kill people, people kill people' argument IS the conclusion, it is not an opening statement. Guns do not occur in nature: they are manufactured by people. A gun, left to itself, will NEVER fire. Guns are tools, not living things and, like every single tool in the history of tools, it can do nothing on its own unless specifically designed to do so... by people. And like every other tool it can be used for its intended purpose: to enrich or improve, in some manner, the lives of human beings OR it can be put towards destructive purposes. The problem is never in the tool... it is in the PEOPLE who wield them. You can never reasonably blame a tool. I went to school with a guy who killed his own mother with a hammer. Was his mother's death the fault of the drugs he was on? Drugs HE decided to take? Was it the fault of the hammer that HE kept in his car? Did the hammer swing itself repeatedly into her skull? No. He did. Those were HIS choices. Should we regulate hammers because one drug-addled, irresponsible, 23 year old man made some bad choices that ultimately culminated in the death of his mother? He, and people like him, are the ones responsible for their actions. Blaming and regulating THEIR misuse of available tools on the tools themselves is stupid and pointless. Can we please stop blaming everything but the real problem? That there are people who are sick, and people who make bad choices, and people who do bad things because they are ACTUALLY bad people and not victims? Is it really that hard to believe that there are evil people in the world? That bad things happen? That, in the final analysis, the only real problems, in all these kinds of situations, are just people? I don't mean to say people are responsible for every bad thing that's ever happened, but when it is one person, or a group of people, doing bad things to other people, or groups of people, it doesn't matter HOW they're doing it. It doesn't matter what their methods are, what matters is that it is PEOPLE doing these things to PEOPLE. Regulating the guns WILL NEVER SOLVE THE PROBLEM. The problem is the people using them. No matter how you cut it, dissect it, evaluate it, analyze it, perceive it, or look at it, in the end you come back to the same problem with regulating them... Clearly, law-abiding citizens are not the ones going around shooting up schools and killing people... If they were, they wouldn't be law-abiding citizens, they'd be criminals. Criminals, by every conceivable definition, are people who, for whatever reason, DO NOT OBEY THE LAW. By disarming people who don't break the law you are taking away their only defense against people who do break the law. And since many of them would not part with their guns REGARDLESS of the laws you pass, and for the very reason I just stated, you would be making criminals of people who aren't doing anything wrong. And before anyone wants to pass me off as another gun nut: I do not now, nor have I ever, nor do I ever intend to, own any guns. I am just someone who can recognize sense when he sees it, and who doesn't run from reality like the growing majority of people seem to do.

I would like to add that to stereotype or scapegoat is to hate. Most every child in America is taught this in grade school yet when your main stream media and president blame one hundred million firearm owning Americans for the deaths of children and the cause of "gun crime" so many fall for the hate.

Obama et all may not outright SAY that legal gun owners are the cause of spree killings and violent crime in America but that IS the message. This can be clearly seen every time anyone, Obama included, blames "guns" and talks of "gun crimes" and notes that guns in the hands of law abiding citizens should be banned or limited to prevent said gun crime and killing sprees.

By not mentioning WHO is partaking in the "gun violence" Obama et all groups ALL gun owners in with the minority of criminal offenders.

This is hate pain and simple. It is NOT a case of "you either agree with gun control or you are against children/ pro killing spree" (implied propagandic message of the media and Obama) but rather is IS the case that you are either against Obama's gun control plans or you are in favor of abolishing every legal non criminal harmless citizen's rights to own self defense firearms, perhaps the right to self defense itself, all in the false name of stopping the criminal actions of the mentally ill or otherwise dangerous few.

Please refer to the pyramid of hate taught to grade school children for more, and the wiki term "propaganda".

You have mistaken the relevance of proximate causation. Sorry, but you need to read the article before posting. You're welcome. Also, who are the haters? Seems that everyone arming themselves because of percieved threats promots more hate, not less.

Apart from where firearms have and still do kill people when left to themselves.

It's amazing that after all these centuries of steady, meticulous evolution of the technology of firearms, we are finally left with gun-nuts who flat out refuse to accept that their gun (specifically designed to be used to kill easier than the type that came before it) is just a "tool" unrelated to killing.

A gun is a tool and that tool was designed to defend people -- not to kill people. Defend them from whom? Wild animals? Perhaps. Other people eager to take away their freedom, their personal property, their life -- yes indeed all of the above.

There is absolutely no greater equalizer of force between individuals than a gun. Even with clubs or a knife, the larger person is at an advantage. That is not so with a gun. A gun brings a great equalization of force. It says: I have the force to defend myself against you.

To pretend that having that ability in this world is not necessary is to be completely delusional. Period.

The very title of this website is of a science of human behavior. Since the beginning of time men have do violence to men. There are no exceptions. It is the law of nature -- of human faculty.

Those who engage in the argument of whether guns kill people or people kill people are guilty of looking at the problem the same way over and over again. Not unlike having a hammer and seeing every problem as a nail.

Have a look around the world for the other great equalizer of force -- the H-Bomb. Was it designed to kill people? It certainly has that capacity -- and plenty of it. It also has the capacity to deter, and I'd argue defend against those who would seek to force their way of life upon another or take from others by force.

Yes, a gun is a tool, a tool whose primary purpose is to kill animals and/or people. It is not primarily a defensive tool. Guns were created to shoot things, not to shield us from injury. Bullet-proof vests and shields are designed to defend, whereas guns, bombs and swords are designed to attack.

It is true that weapons can be used as deterrents, but that is an indirect use and doesn’t change the nature of what they were designed for. If the potential for deterrence were the sole factor for judging the nature of a tool or action, then all violence could be considered defensive.

As for equalizing force, I doubt anyone would advocate giving every individual an atomic bomb for self-defence.

where a 9 year-old accidentally shot and killed her shooting instructor with a fully-automatic Uzi.

Surely the gun cannot be held responsible (it is an inanimate object). Nor should the 9 year old (she a minor, and she did not demonstrate malicious intent). Speaking to your post, she did not choose to shot the instructor, and regulation may have prevented this (e.g., prohibiting on a 9 year old from operating a powerful fully-automatic weapon).

Drawing a comparison to regulations that impose age restrictions on the operation of vehicles, legislatures have concluded that certain vehicles cannot be safely operated by people of a certain age. Is it that far-fetched (or that oppressive) to conclude that certain minors should not be operating certain types of firearms?

Unfortunately the 9 year old was able to access a deadly weapon. A car CAN be a deadly weapon, but that is not it's intended use? How can one draw such a far-fetched comparison. Think of something better.

Re: added weapons in school, doesn't it make sense that the more weapons out there, the greater likelihood of one being used, sometimes in defense, other times accidentally, impulsively, irresponsibly, or even irrationally, or by some crazy idiot?!! It's all a numbers game, just like ratio of available guns per incident in this uniquely gun-happy country!!

Light bulb moment!... Actually, we're all wrong. Here's the formula: It takes 2 to tango. FIREARM + ACCESS BY PEOPLE. You can't separate the two. It takes both to fire it. This accident was preventible. Unfortunately, it's too late to solve the formula mentioned above. There are too many firearms, and too many people with access to them! "People," without including the firearm, is NOT the problem. Guilty, & guilty. Don't fool yourselves! So, there!!

The scenario involving the 23 year old, hammer-using murderer is why I am replying. You compared a gun to a hammer. Any "tool" can be used to accomplish a murderous task. Those who are suggesting gun regulation are not basing their argument on a single death. Millions of people have died due to gun violence. People do kill people, I agree, but guns do make the killers' tasks much easier. You cannot argue that guns are not at least partially responsible for premature deaths, injuries, and other mass murders. Would Sandy Hook have happened if the killer used a hammer? No.

Psycology and Politics...?? Okay lets dig deeper into this country and its history. There is a reason our nation has never been invaded by a foriegn power. Our right to keep and bear Arms... Believe it or not, Gorilla Warfare is never what any country wants to face. The Vietnam War is a prime example of that. A structured military force cannot uphold an invasion of any nation where citizens have the freedom to protect their families with tactics and firepower that is equal to the enemy or criminal, WHO CHOOSES TO HARM INSTEAD OF PROTECT...!!!

Unfortunately you are wrong about guns not firing without someone pulling the trigger. They are machines and machines inevitably fail. Guns have fired without people pulling the trigger and it is easy enough to search cases of that on the internet. On the contrary, no one has ever been shot when a gun is not present. I can guarantee you that no one will ever die from a gun shot if there are no guns.

"doing bad things to other people, or groups of people, it doesn't matter HOW they're doing it. It doesn't matter what their methods are"

If these killing methods are so widespread (like gun massacres in schools) it matters to see what people's methods are. If everyone was going around carrying hammers, there would probably be more violence with them because of availability. The same applies to guns. But unlike hammers, guns are only meant to kill, even if they can be a benefit to human beings.

When shootings become an epidemic as seen on the news everyday, it is the people's responsibility to attend to this problem. There is a black market for guns, but logically there would be less gun violence if less people had them and they were not sold as easily in the first place.

A contributing factor is the types of guns sold legally in the United States. AK 47s and other semi-automatic weapons are not necessary for hunting. Why are they sold anyway to anyone but military? Guns are made by people and used by people...but again, their sole purpose is to kill and the method of killing becomes relevant to today's society when this type of killing is happening so frequently everyday (whether it be gun violence or something else).

If guns are only meant to kill then why do police and military need them?

So long as there is a threat to human life that human has an individual right to defend their life. A gun can wound or kill people, as you have mentioned.

An outright ban on guns will not take away guns from criminals, and even if it did reduce their access to firearms the ratio of armed criminals VS unarmed legal law abiding citizens would skyrocket in favor of the criminal.

Please see general crime rates and TOTAL murder rates (not deaths, this includes justifiable killings including those by police and self defense cases).

When you take away good law abiding non violent people's guns you bolster the criminal element.

See also "gun free zones".

If you want to stop dangerous people from having guns you will find that BOTH sides agree with this. The only catch is the pro gun side does not trust the government to determine who can or can not have a gun as they feel the answer in the long run is "no one but us". This is why your background checks are being resisted. If gun owners trusted the government not to confiscate their guns IMO they'd be all for background checks for everyone, including myself.

As a Canadian I know personally that out government persecuted, arrested, and treated good law abiding firearms owners as criminals after a law was passed banning AK47s as well as many other things (registry!) all in the name of preventing a school spree shooting (ours was ecole polytechnique de montreal). IT did nothing to such end as other spree shootings occurred. Millions of GOOD people were jailed for simply owning guns or not registering them, or not handing them over to be destroyed (no compensation offered either).

Long story short as a Candian I already know the point of these laws, they are aimed at GOOD people and blame them for the actions of a few EVIL ones...... and do not accomplish public safety at all.

The Canadian long gun registry did not save 1 life in 20 years... but it did violate our Charter of Rights and Freedoms and so do all the laws passed because of that shooting.

This should read "Millions of good people were persecuted, many jailed"

Millions were not jailed.

A side note, 50% compliance with the Registry in Cananda. 5 million firearms owners, 2.5 million new "criminals" for the police to focus their efforts on (and they DID) while ignoring the actual violent criminals.

"Why are they sold anyway to anyone but military?". Question, if the military is the ONLY one that should have them then you must agree all those law enforcement officers we saw on TV 24/7 in Boston, during the manhunt for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev , SHOULD NOT have had them either right? If you say law enforcement SHOULD have them because of the threats they face then you just answered your own question as to why they should be sold to citizens who choose to purchase them. After all, we (the public) face the EXACT same threat law enforcement faces. If they need them so do we.

"doing bad things to other people, or groups of people, it doesn't matter HOW they're doing it. It doesn't matter what their methods are"

If these killing methods are so widespread (like gun massacres in schools) it matters to see what people's methods are. If everyone was going around carrying hammers, there would probably be more violence with them because of availability. The same applies to guns. But unlike hammers, guns are only meant to kill, even if they can be a benefit to human beings.

When shootings become an epidemic as seen on the news everyday, it is the people's responsibility to attend to this problem. There is a black market for guns, but logically there would be less gun violence if less people had them and they were not sold as easily in the first place.

A contributing factor is the types of guns sold legally in the United States. AK 47s and other semi-automatic weapons are not necessary for hunting. Why are they sold anyway to anyone but military? Guns are made by people and used by people...but again, their sole purpose is to kill and the method of killing becomes relevant to today's society when this type of killing is happening so frequently everyday (whether it be gun violence or something else).

Hammers I'm quite sure are more available and numerous than guns. Actually, compared to the 'scary' guns authoritarian liberals like to go after--"assault rifles" they actually kill far more people year in and year out.

Actually Vicky, its not an "epidemic" and homicides and 'gun violence' has been declining. Of course if you just watch TV and listen to endless rants not based on evidence, one could easily assume that mass shooting and gun related violence has increased, but its actually decreased quite a bit.

People kill more of each other with knives, hammers, bared hands each year than Rifles.

Guns aren't mean for hunting, only about 19% of gun owners actually hunt. Self-defense remains a number one reason for gun ownership. Less than 1% of violent crimes are stopped by police, police are a reactive force, mostly crime scene historians--who then attempt to go after the 'bad guy'. Unfortunately, when you are being attacked, killed, etc etc. someone showing up 10-30mins later doesn't really help much.

Evidenced based opinions seem scant, if gun grabbers and others who want to take away freedoms really were informed and genuine, they would go after handguns (90% of all murders) and Gang Violence in large urban areas (70-80% all all murders with guns).

But of course talking stats is worthless, since its fear mongering and emotions that rule the day, and push the arguments. So again and again people talk about 'hunting' and go after stylistic aspects of guns. Gang violence continues to be the epidemic, with that being the great majority of gun related murders year in an year out. But I don't see anything on TV about that.

I agree with the 1st poster that "guns don't kill people, people kill people" is not an ARGUMENT, but rather an CONCLUSION. People still kill each other in high numbers with hands, knives, hammers and all the rest. Freedom is a wonderful thing, but apparently the authoritarian impulse remains strong--the left wants to impose its will via violence from the state to pursue their utopian ideas, and too much of the right want to take away people rights to whom they can marry etc etc.

Guns of all types were pretty much banned in Chicago for 20 years, yet they remain the murder capital of the US. Gangs aren't listening to the laws, and gang violence is a huge issue in that city. How about an evidence based approach that focuses on illegally obtained handguns and Gang violence--the two statistically significant factors in the majority of homicides in the US.

check out the data, then perhaps people can figure out how to stop hammer/knife/handgun crime...maybe just post up billboards with the laws listed on them in high crime areas--perhaps the murderers just didn't get the memo that their use of weapons were illegal. The corrective impulse just like in therapy, can be a bad one and an overly controlling one--that doesn't lead to its intended purpose. Yet people want to "feel" like they are changing the world or helping or being empathetic, but trying to take away freedoms from people that actually follow the laws--doing almost nothing statistically.

You said, "Guns of all types were pretty much banned in Chicago for 20 years, yet they remain the murder capital of the US. Gangs aren't listening to the laws, and gang violence is a huge issue in that city."

So you're basically arguing that because there are people that will break the law anyway, there shouldn't be any laws or regulations regarding guns? You wouldn't find that argument convincing if you applied it to any other issue and you know it.

These are interesting statistics, though I must point out that even though rifles do not kill as many people as other guns do, total gun crime deaths greatly outweigh the deaths of other kinds of murders in general. In fact, according to your statistics people with guns murder approximately three times more than those without.

Some of these facts that you are saying do make sense, and that is why people in government need to come up with some type of compromise in order to stop killings with and without guns. However, I do believe that if the government cracked down federally instead of just statewide (like in Chicago), we would definitely see the difference.

Interesting observation on the structure of the slogan's argument, or rather lack thereof.

I had an insight a little while ago myself about the slogan's logic, and what a huge difference it makes which "people" we identify with. We can see this by substituting "you" for one or the other instances of "people".

I always use to read it this way: "Guns don't kill people. YOU kill people." That is, that we humans are responsible, and rather than trying to blame the tools we use to kill people, we should look at ourselves and stop killing. And who can argue? Obviously, we shouldn't kill people.

But lately I've come to see that many gun fanatics read have another reading: "Guns don't kill you. PEOPLE kill you." In other words, don't be afraid of guns, be afraid of people. And guns can protect you from those treacherous, deadly people. THIS reading is subtle and insidious, but it's also explicitly why a lot of gun owners keep guns: for self-defense.

It can also be stated that guns don't kill people, gun users do. So regulate the use of them. As mentioned in the article, that is complicated, since in this country they are excessively accessible. However, does adding more guns in schools make it less or more likely for guns to be used, at times rashly, or by provocation?

I have been looking a lot recently at people and I am coming up with the constant conclusion that we’re a complete contradiction in terms, collectively of course! The reason I ended up reading this article is because of an exchange I had on Twitter! Someone wrote something about John Kerry being a Hypocrite due to something he said about the weapons being used in Syria, which I can understand but I have moved beyond looking at immediate factors when it comes to taking sides in ANY Human conflict. I grew up in Northern Ireland in the 70’s and 80’s so I know about the nature of conflict.

More and more recently I keep finding myself beyond the opinions and attitudes of the people around me. I am unsure of how to describe it exactly but it’s almost as if I am seeing things from a virtually non-emotional place which leads me to very simple categorical conclusions that those who are angry or emotional either cannot or will not see. People seem to mistake anger for passion and it is seen that if you give a booming emotional account of yourself during a debate that you’re somehow more credible than someone who is calm.

My answer to the tweet about John Kerry was a simple one. I said “The most Heinous weapon is the Human mind… Fact.” The comment that came back was “Opinion. And Wrong.”

The statement I made is not my opinion it is the most true statement there is. Everything that is made to murder is made by the Human therefore it is in the Human mind that the concept of murder exists and it is interpreted and realised from there and then made actual by the body connected to the mind.

It should be obvious to everyone that these mass shootings are a result of deranged individuals getting their hands on guns. How did the sandy hook shooter get his guns? How did the shooter at the aurora colorado theater get his guns? How did the kid at virginia tech get his guns? How did the kids in colombine get their guns? How did that guy who shot up the navy yard get his guns? Were these people mentally ill? Did other people (friends, family, doctors, authorities) know about their mental condition previous to their shooting spree? If there was foreknowledge about their existing mental condition, what preventative measures were taken? What medication were these mass murderers prescribed? What are the side effects from the use of these medications? What withdrawals or symptoms occur when they stop using these prescribed medications? These are the most important questions that we need answers to.

Because it is the combination of guns and people that does all the damage, we can choose which to change or eliminate. Since people are hard to change and valuable, the remaining choice is to change or eliminate guns. It's pretty much a case of 'you can value people or you can value guns, but you can't value both."

When I read in the last paragraph of your article that the reader would, after reading it, be able to "patiently explain the [logical] fallacy" of the "guns don't kill people" argument to someone who uses it, I was curious to see just how successful the article had been at persuading this portion of your audience. 2,500 years ago, Aristotle instructed those who would argue persuasively to know their audience:

"The right thing in speaking really is that we should be satisfied not to annoy our hearers, without trying to delight them: we ought in fairness to fight our case with no help beyond the bare facts: nothing, therefore, should matter except the proof of those facts. Still, as has been already said, other things affect the result considerably, owing to the defects of our hearers."

I wasn't surprised to see that you were repeatedly attacked in the comments as being "anti-gun". In the eyes of the Defenders of the Second Amendment, to find fault with any pro-gun slogan/argument is to be anti-gun. Nothing but the proof of the bare facts should matter, right? Wrong. You forgot that, like Mitt Romney, these zealots refuse to allow their belief system to be affected by facts. Bravo for trying though!

A PERSON could hold a water gun and firearm, one in each hand, and squeeze the triggers at the same time, and only the firearm kills. Why?

How come the firearm kills in one hand, but not the other? Same PERSON, same time, same intent pulling the trigger, same aim, same target. There is nothing unusual assumed.

The PERSON pulls the triggers, the firearm kills, the water gun does not.

This account is objective, witness to the fact, and reasonable. The killing is with the OBJECT, and not the person. If the firearm misfires, jams or does not discharge for any reason, the object does not kill.

To claim in opposition, the "person KILLS, and not the GUN," is to lose sight of the rationality above. This emotional claim is subjective and moral in its goal. It forces the observer to consider intent, but only through the examiner's intuition, so subjectivity, so guesswork, underlies the understanding. At its strongest, in its most fierce state, intent can do no more than pull a trigger.

The person still killed, with the gun that fired (not the water pistol). If the real gun had misfired the person could keep trying until successful. To kill with any weapon is an act of will. People exert will, inanimate objects have no will. When out of bullets, the gun becomes a club or projectile. Human will aims the gun and moves the finger that pulls the trigger. Without people, guns would not exist. People kill, not guns; for example, Cain killed Abel with a rock, because he did not have a gun...David killed Goliath with a slingshot, because he didn't have a gun...Lizzy Borden took and axe, because she....

The argument goes: "A gun is an inanimate object and will not fire by itsself."

Well, on the same token, the Salk polio vaccine will never inject itsself into a child. So are we to conclude the nurse who gave the child the polio shot prevented the disease? Or should the vaccine get the credit? Hint: The nurse without the vaccine is powerless to prevent polio.

If someone says "guns don’t kill people, people do", I'd say: "Yeah, you're right, I completely agree. So what you're saying is we should not focus on guns but on people. Right? So what you're saying is we should take measuses that prevent or make it much harder for people killing each other! Right? WelI, I'd say make it virtually impossible for people to lay their hands on guns, or even abolish them and put the money in education. Right? That's a hell of a measure, or do you have an even more effective one?